By Harsha Gunasena
Cumaranathunga Munidasa, one of the great sons of the soil, once
said the nation which does not create new things continuously does not rise in
the world; when it is impossible to beg further it bogs down after singing the
swan song. It is doubtful whether his vision was really appreciated in its true
value in Sri Lanka rather than limiting to the literary meaning to his words.
The basic ingredient of innovation is the ability to challenge
the status quo. The individuals who changed the world such as Buddha, Jesus and
Marx challenged the status quo and took steps to change the same. They were
rebels in the true spirit. When a question was asked by the Kalamas from the
Buddha that there are several spiritual teachers and they are uncertain to what
to believe, the Buddha responded as follows:
“Of course you are uncertain, Kalamas. Of course you are in
doubt. When there are reasons for doubt, uncertainty is born. So in this case,
Kalamas, don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by
logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering
views, by probability, or by the thought, ‘This contemplative is our teacher.’
When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are unskillful; these
qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticised by the wise; these
qualities, when adopted and carried out, lead to harm and to suffering’ — then
you should abandon them… When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities
are skilful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the
wise; these qualities, when adopted and carried out, lead to welfare and to
happiness’ — then you should enter and remain in them.” (Translation by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu)
Ultimate authorization of free
thinking
This is ultimate authorization of free thinking. Although the
majority of the country is supposed to be Buddhists, cultural values prevailing
in the country are not in line with that thinking. In contrary to what the
Buddha recommended, in Sri Lankan society the status quo is hardly challenged.
What are frequently challenged are phenomena within the status quo.
Sri Lankan society is plagued by power distance. Power distance
between the rulers and the general public; bureaucrats and the common man;
managers and the employees; priests and the laymen; teachers and the pupils;
and parents and the children. This distance creates a hindrance to challenge
the status quo.
The first Vice Chancellor of the Vidyodaya University Rev.
Velivitiye Soratha Thero, a great scholar the country has produced, once said
that the university students should be researchers and revolutionaries,
non-violent of cause.
Power distance
Power distance was defined by Geert Hofsted, a Dutch
sociologist, as follows: “Power distance is the extent to which the less
powerful members of organizations and institutions (like the family) accept and
expect that power is distributed unequally.”
Hofsted’s original theory dealing with cross cultural issues
discussed in the book ‘Culture’s Consequences’ published in 1980 proposed four dimensions
along which cultural values could be analyzed. Those are:
individualism-collectivism; uncertainty avoidance; power distance (strength of
social hierarchy) and masculinity-femininity (task orientation versus
person-orientation).
Subsequently he added a fifth dimension, long-term orientation,
to cover aspects of values not discussed in the original paradigm, mainly in
relation to the Chinese culture. In the 2010 edition of ‘Cultures and Organizations:
Software of the Mind,’ Hofsted added a sixth dimension, indulgence versus
self-restraint.
In Sri Lanka the power distance between the parents and the
children is interpreted as obedience and the same between teachers and pupils
is interpreted as respect. When the children are more obedient to their parents
and express more respect towards their teachers, creativity would reduce to the
same extent.
In the societies where obedience and respect is in abundance,
children and students in those societies who question the status quo are rare.
They try to follow the existing system due to their inherent obedience to the
system and respect to the system. They do not question teachers in the lecture
hall or class room. In the societies where power distance is high teachers
teach and in the societies where power distance is low students learn.
Power distance between managers and the employees can be
interpreted as intention to follow. Employees want to follow the instructions
given by the managers without questioning the reasonability of the decisions
taken without giving a feedback, which creates ‘one way traffic,’ which is a
hindrance for growth of any organization.
Fear factor
Power distance between people and public officers and also
people and politicians can be interpreted as fear. In the countries where power
distance is high, people fear to work against the wrongdoings or malpractices
of the politicians and the public officials.
When there is no strong resistance from the general public,
politicians and the public officers do not hesitate to carry out their
wrongdoings. They dare to threaten, intimidate, bodily harm, make disappear and
kill those who work against them in order to establish the fear of people of
them. In addition to this they give various concessions to those who oppose
them and get their support as well.
Sometimes there can be a power distance among main political
institutions, Executive, Legislature and Judiciary although the prevalence of
such a situation is not expected. This comes out in the form of submissiveness.
One pillar of the basic governance structure should not be submissive to
another but the inherent power distance in the society supported by the other
conditions may pave the way for this unfortunate situation.
Elimination of power distance
The starting point of the elimination of power distance
basically and the associated fear, submissiveness, intention to follow, respect
or obedience secondarily is the understanding by the weaker party of the
relationship of the underlying reason of this which is the backwardness of the
attitudes.
It would be difficult to take away these attitudes of the people
which were in existence over a long period of time. But this can be done since
the power distance was created by the weaker party of the relationship not by
the stronger party according to the definition of Hofsted. Elimination of this
would pave the way for the much needed innovation which is essential for a
society to flourish.
Suggestion to reduce power distance could be interpreted by the
cultural authorities as disrespect to the hierarchy. It is not disrespect at
the personal level but lack of respect at the ideological level. When one is
having ideological lack of respect only one can challenge the status quo. It is
a democratic process against an authoritarian process hither to prevail.
Therefore Sri Lankan society should seriously be aware of this
cultural aspect prevailing in the country although the culture of a country
cannot be changed over a short period. This awareness itself might bring the
desired results.
